Your English writing platform
Free sign upExact(1)
Patients are randomly assigned, in a 1 1 ratio, to either an observation group or UFT adjuvant therapy group, using minimization by introducing a random element with a 0.8 assignment probability [ 14], balanced on the following stratification factors: depth of tumor invasion (T3 vs. T4), number of lymph-nodes examined (<12 vs. ≥12) and institution.
Similar(59)
Donor mares were randomly assigned in a cross-over design study.
Fourteen volunteer males were randomly assigned, in a double-blind crossover design, to a placebo or experimental supplemented groups.
A total of 360 one-day-old commercial Arbor Acres broilers were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design.
Four Holstein steers (average initial body weight of 251 kg) were randomly assigned in a 4×4 Latin Square treatment design.
Three hundred and thirty-five participants were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design to either: BMI, AEC, BMI and AEC, and assessment only conditions.
Three ruminally cannulated, Holstein dairy cows, 259 ± 6 DIM (mean ± SEM), were randomly assigned in a 3 × 3 Latin square design.
The children were randomly assigned, in a 2 1 ratio, to undergo intrathecal administration of nusinersen at a dose of 12 mg (nusinersen group) or a sham procedure (control group) on days 1, 29, 85, and 274.
Thereafter, participants were randomly assigned, in a cross-over experimental design, to receive 16 days of supplementation with 300 mL·day−1 of a watermelon juice concentrate, which provided ∼3.4 g l-citrulline·day−1 and an apple juice concentrate as a placebo.
Male subjects with IGT recruited from health-screening examinees were randomly assigned in a 4 1 ratio to a standard intervention group (control group) and intensive intervention group (intervention group).
Methods: Patients were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design to the administration of: (1) 20 mg of simvastatin daily versus matching placebo, and (2) 100 mg of modified-release aspirin daily versus matching placebo.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com